Skip to content

skills(running-tend): record that a restarted PR starts clean #425

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
nedtwigg merged 1 commit into from
Aug 20, 2026
Merged

skills(running-tend): record that a restarted PR starts clean #425

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions .claude/skills/running-tend/SKILL.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19,6 +19,12 @@ When `UI Tests` is the only non-terminal check and every automated check is gree

`ntwigg` is the maintainer's local shell username (it shows up in prompt fixtures like `ntwigg@ntwigg-mac-2025` in [`terminal-prompt-shape.test.ts`](../../../lib/src/lib/terminal-prompt-shape.test.ts)) and also, on GitHub, an unrelated person's account. Writing `@ntwigg` in a comment, PR body, or commit message pings a stranger and subscribes them to the thread, which only they can undo. Use `@nedtwigg`, and don't copy the shorter handle forward from a thread that already contains the typo. ([diffplug/dormouse#389](https://github.com/diffplug/dormouse/pull/389#issuecomment-5319456021))

## A restart starts clean — don't carry a superseded PR's findings forward

Long-running work here is often closed and reopened as a fresh PR ("Supersedes #N"), and that restart is deliberate — nedtwigg: *"When I start over, I usually **want** to start over. The original conversation grew too unfocused and out of hand."* So review the successor on its own terms: don't fetch the predecessor's bot comments and reviews in order to re-raise findings from them, and don't treat a finding dropped that way as a gap in the review machinery. Carrying the closed thread's context forward is the thing the restart was for.

Proposed as an overlay note and rejected in [#421](https://github.com/diffplug/dormouse/pull/421#issuecomment-5361239323). The underlying incident (#398 → #416, where three findings written up as #398 closed mid-review went unre-raised) is easy to re-derive from session logs — a `review-runs`/`review-reviewers` sweep that rediscovers it should not re-file it here or upstream at `max-sixty/tend`.

## Settled upstream rulings — don't re-file

Before a `review-runs`/`review-reviewers` sweep flags a tend behavior as waste or files it upstream, check this list — these were already raised and ruled on, so re-filing burns a session and spams upstream:
Expand Down